Democracy is the result of a long and complicated evolution that has been
going on roughly 2000 years. Throughout the history of democracy, there have
been numerousexamples of ways to abuse and manipulate the democratic
system. In particular after direct democracy was rejected in favour of the
parliamentary system as a practical way to run states and nations, most of
these attempts have been associated with misinformation, propaganda or the detaining
of information. (Jor 1999)

To prevent the abuse of the democratic system, Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)
devised a system of dividing the power into three parts. This system was dependent
of an enlightened population (Jor 1999). Obviously, this is where the media
come in:

At least two basic and fundamentalconditions need to be present
for a healthy democracy to exist and flourish. The first condition requires
the unrestrained ability to pursue, gather and disperse information freely.
The second condition, directly related to the first, consists of an informed
public. (Park 1998)

It can be argued that, even with a free press, "Nothing guarantees that
all valuable information, ideas, theories, explanations, proposals,
and points of view will find expression in the public forum."
(Lichtenberg 1990 p102). On the other hand, it seems obvious that if there had
not been a press to filter the massive amounts of information that a government
can produce, attempting to gain an overview of what is going on in society is
futile.

Before about 1900, the press was by no means striving for objectivity - the
idea of journalists was that they had to bring their own opinions. The general
consensus was something like "Leave it to others to come with the counter
opinions". In the first part of the 20th century, as parliamentary democracy
started evolving, the various political parties made ties with the press, and
the "independent" press was in the minority (Østlyngen &
Øvrebo 2000)

The situation slowly changed. In Norway, the strong bond between parties
and newspapers was not severed until during the 1972European Economic Community
(EEC) plebiscite. At this time, politics in Norway was turbulent. Many of
the leading politicians went against the party line. The newspapers traditionally
connected with a certain party did no longer know which side of the election
to promote. The media eventually came up with the solutions to try to show both
sides of the argument, which effectively resulted in a disassociation with the
various political parties (Østlyngen & Øvrebo 2000)

As a functioning democracy is so closely connected with the voters' access
to free information (Park 1998), and because a political party cannot be expected
to publish unbiased information about a sitting government or about the party's
own political stance (Lichtenberg 1990), the importance of a free press becomes
even more apparent. In addition to a free press, another factor enters the equation:
Diversity. Having a free media seems pointless, if there is only one newspaper.
Media concentration "is a threat to democracy because it limits the diversity
of ideas, perspectives and opinions" (Park 1998)

The media's role, is to bring a variety of information that might be of interest
to potential voters - not only on political matters, but also on a more personal
level. - One of the basic ideas of democracy is the idea that the government
should rule by the wishes of the majority, while protecting the interests of
the minorities. One of the roles of media, then, is to assure that the government
in power indeed makes sure to defend these interests. (Keane 1991).

Media is important to the democraticprocess. However, media as a whole
does not exist exclusively to inform their readers. With few exceptions, media
have owners. These owners want to make money. Critics are willing to "accept
objectivity as an ideal, but find it too little practiced. The problem
is bias, not blandness" (Lichtenberg 1990 p253). In other words: Influencing
a media institution by imposing restrictions and editorial guidelines is not
only possible, but it is a fact that democratic societies will have to learn
to live with.

The fact that corporations, spin-doctors and owners can influence the
media is the reason why journalists become important; a media institution
is merely a media institution, with all the positive and negative aspects that
being a media institution has. Being a journalist, however, is an occupation,
and not an entity. This means that journalists are people, and people have an
advantage that an institution (such as a newspaper or a radio station)
as a whole does not have: Free will. To a certain degree, this free will enables
journalists to rebel against their institutions, through choosing which stories
to drop or pick up, and by slanting editorial content. Because of this, it an
individual journalist is a vital part of a democratic society.